Sarah Barnard | Film Annotation 11 | A Civil Action 1. Title, director and release year A Civil Action | Steven Zaillan | 1998 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? A Civil Action is a film based on a true story about the 1981 case of the People of Massachusetts vs. W. R. Grace and Beatrice foods. Toxic chemicals had been previously introduced into the water tables of the small town of Woburn, resulting in the death of 8 children from leukemia. When personal injury lawyer Jan Schlichtmann (played by John Travolta) first sees the case, he dismisses it as not-profitable. When he goes out to tell the families no, however, he sees the names of the companies and finally agrees. Although Schlichtmann initially takes the case because of the large amounts of money held by the companies involved, the film turns into a tale of his successes and failures. He comes to truly care about the affected families and the injustices of the system, and even though his entire firm goes broke trying to keep the case in court, Schlichtmann sees it through to the end. The two companies were finally made to pay the clean-up costs, $69.4 million, to avoid returning to court in the largest and most expensive clean-up project in the history of New England. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? A Civil Action is a Hollywood drama based on a true story which draws out a surprising number of sustainability problems. Ecological, political, legal, economic, and organizational/cultural problems were all evident throughout the film. Although presented in a different manner than in typical documentaries, the sustainability problems associated with this real-life event were incredibly clear. The most obvious, and yet possibly least important, sustainability problem drawn out in the film was ecological. The dumping of toxic waste from the tannery and chemical factories led to contaminated water, resulting in the deaths of eight children who all died of leukemia. The health implications of this contamination are obviously important, but the film’s main focus isn’t to present the idea of companies’ pollution. Rather, the main focus was to prove how much the companies are able to get away with, and how even when they are in trouble, they are able to bail themselves out. Political and legal problems were an incredibly important part of A Civil Action, with one quote by Schlichtmann stating that only 1.5% of cases ever reach a verdict. Before taking on this case, Schlichtmann only took on cases that were almost guaranteed to be settled outside of court by monetary means. When W. R. Grace and Beatrice tried to settle, however, Schlichtmann had become emotionally involved in the case, and he didn’t feel it was right to let the companies get away with the implications of their actions. Jan was constantly battling with the other lawyers and even the judge to move the trial forward in an attempt to find the truth. The defense lawyer, Jerry, even says that the “court isn’t the place to look for the truth.” The political and legal implications of this ecological disaster showcase some of the defects in the system, where the plaintiff must fight for their right for the case to be heard, rather than attempting to punish the companies responsible. Another major sustainability problem brought up is an economic one. Many of the storylines within the film kept coming back to the idea of money. Schlichtmann’s office went absolutely broke trying to fund the case, giving up almost everything they had. The companies wanted to settle for a small amount of money that would mean almost nothing to them, yet “forgive them” of what had happened. The emphasis put on money throughout the entire legal process was simply appalling. One of the mothers of the deceased children told Schlichtmann from the beginning that she just wanted an apology from the people responsible, and in the end even Jan realizes that it is a hopeless cause. As long as companies can afford to pay the fines for their mistakes, it is unlikely they will stop making them. Additionally, the organizational/behavioral problems are in relation to economic concerns. Jan tries to speak with the employees of the tannery, but none of them will talk because they don’t want to lose their job. The tannery provided for many families in the small town, and everyone who had work was thankful for it. They couldn’t afford to not get paid, and so their organizational structure forced them to stay quiet. One man, who eventually wound up telling, was in obvious distress throughout the movie trying to keep the secret of the toxic waste. This fear of reaction for the workers is an obvious organizational problem in the pyramid of the business world. All of these problems are evident in A Civil Action, drawn out mainly through the interaction of the characters and the transformation of Jan Schlichtmann. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I found A Civil Action to be a very persuasive and compelling film. As a Hollywood production, it was much different than many of the documentaries we have watched this semester. It was persuasive that sustainability problems could be drawn out through a purely human-interest story, that of both Jan Schlichtmann and the families of Woburn. There were no hard facts about the water tables and contamination or of the specific medical effects of the chemicals, but rather the film focused on the more human aspects of the problems, problems that anyone can relate to. I found the scenes of Jan’s transformation the most compelling, showing how the problems can quickly multiply and spread out to reach many more people than just those originally involved. One scene I found particularly interesting was one toward the end, where Schlichtman is speaking with Jerry, the older lawyer for Beatrice. They are talking about many of the negative components of law, and how the courtroom isn’t really the place to look for the truth. It emphasizes the political influences on the system, and how even once it comes down to the people, the most deserving don’t always win. This scene was especially compelling because it drew up a lot of intriguing points about how our “fair” legal system really works. 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? I really enjoyed A Civil Action, and I thought it did an excellent job portraying the issues of this true story. One parts of the film I did not find as persuasive, however, was toward the end when Jan is writing a letter saying he can no longer carry the case on to the court of appeals. I didn’t really understand who he was writing the letter too, and while maybe I just missed it, it resulted in the end being slightly confusing. It was good to have a little recap at the end, but it didn’t focus enough on the outcomes, both for the case and for Schlichtmann as a whole to be entirely compelling. I also felt that the parents of the deceased children could have played a more important role in the film, as all of the scenes with them were very compelling, but they were few and far between. The film was excellent, however, at portraying the true human emotions of the characters. 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? I am interested to find out how many similar cases have been settled outside of court, and out of the few that wound up going to trial, how often there were serious consequences for the companies involved. There are obviously problems in a world where a company can be responsible for the death of eight children and merely pay a fine to help clean up the mess. I would like to find out more about some similar cases, as well as about the types of lawyers who take on these cases. While Schlichtmann was a personal injury lawyer who turned environmental lawyer, it would be interesting to see the number of students graduating law school with the ability to take on these type of environmental cases, and to note if that number has changed over the past few centuries. 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? A Civil Action is certainly a film best promoted for older viewers, simply because of content, but I believe it would address a wide variety of audiences. A major difference between this film and many of the other films this semester was its Hollywood status, with major actors and a Hollywood budget. The film does present many similar sustainability problems as some of the other documentaries, but it does so in a very narrative way that much more of the general public can relate to than scientific documentaries. I think that the film would be well received by college-aged students or older as proof of the injustices of our legal system . It doesn’t seem that the film would change anyone’s opinion on environmental problems, but it may make them begin to question many of the principles they take to be safe, such as our legal system. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The film’s main point of intervention was focused on the human aspect of these type of cases, and that when you genuinely feel for a cause, you will be willing to give up everything to provide your point and to help the people involved. It especially points to environmental lawyers to remind them to stand up for the people and hold the corporations responsible for their actions. It also speaks on an individual level to speak up for what you believe in, even if it isn’t the easiest, such as the man who rented the dump trucks to remove all of the waste at his boss’s request. The kind of interventions suggested by A Civil Action aren’t specific actions to carry out, but more of a reminder to humanity on how we look after our own people. 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? A Civil Action did not have many scientific facts in it, but I’m not sure that was necessary to create educational value within the film. I really enjoyed the movie and how it brought up sustainability issues while simultaneously keeping strictly to the narrative of the true story. Perhaps some more information about the results of the appeals could have helped, or additionally more on some precedent cases or other similar cases that had taken place. The film was very educational, at least to me, but perhaps it could have tried to touch upon some more specific examples of the big-picture ideas.
1. Title, director and release year
A Civil Action | Steven Zaillan | 1998
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
A Civil Action is a film based on a true story about the 1981 case of the People of Massachusetts vs. W. R. Grace and Beatrice foods. Toxic chemicals had been previously introduced into the water tables of the small town of Woburn, resulting in the death of 8 children from leukemia. When personal injury lawyer Jan Schlichtmann (played by John Travolta) first sees the case, he dismisses it as not-profitable. When he goes out to tell the families no, however, he sees the names of the companies and finally agrees. Although Schlichtmann initially takes the case because of the large amounts of money held by the companies involved, the film turns into a tale of his successes and failures. He comes to truly care about the affected families and the injustices of the system, and even though his entire firm goes broke trying to keep the case in court, Schlichtmann sees it through to the end. The two companies were finally made to pay the clean-up costs, $69.4 million, to avoid returning to court in the largest and most expensive clean-up project in the history of New England.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
A Civil Action is a Hollywood drama based on a true story which draws out a surprising number of sustainability problems. Ecological, political, legal, economic, and organizational/cultural problems were all evident throughout the film. Although presented in a different manner than in typical documentaries, the sustainability problems associated with this real-life event were incredibly clear.
The most obvious, and yet possibly least important, sustainability problem drawn out in the film was ecological. The dumping of toxic waste from the tannery and chemical factories led to contaminated water, resulting in the deaths of eight children who all died of leukemia. The health implications of this contamination are obviously important, but the film’s main focus isn’t to present the idea of companies’ pollution. Rather, the main focus was to prove how much the companies are able to get away with, and how even when they are in trouble, they are able to bail themselves out. Political and legal problems were an incredibly important part of A Civil Action, with one quote by Schlichtmann stating that only 1.5% of cases ever reach a verdict. Before taking on this case, Schlichtmann only took on cases that were almost guaranteed to be settled outside of court by monetary means. When W. R. Grace and Beatrice tried to settle, however, Schlichtmann had become emotionally involved in the case, and he didn’t feel it was right to let the companies get away with the implications of their actions. Jan was constantly battling with the other lawyers and even the judge to move the trial forward in an attempt to find the truth. The defense lawyer, Jerry, even says that the “court isn’t the place to look for the truth.” The political and legal implications of this ecological disaster showcase some of the defects in the system, where the plaintiff must fight for their right for the case to be heard, rather than attempting to punish the companies responsible.
Another major sustainability problem brought up is an economic one. Many of the storylines within the film kept coming back to the idea of money. Schlichtmann’s office went absolutely broke trying to fund the case, giving up almost everything they had. The companies wanted to settle for a small amount of money that would mean almost nothing to them, yet “forgive them” of what had happened. The emphasis put on money throughout the entire legal process was simply appalling. One of the mothers of the deceased children told Schlichtmann from the beginning that she just wanted an apology from the people responsible, and in the end even Jan realizes that it is a hopeless cause. As long as companies can afford to pay the fines for their mistakes, it is unlikely they will stop making them. Additionally, the organizational/behavioral problems are in relation to economic concerns. Jan tries to speak with the employees of the tannery, but none of them will talk because they don’t want to lose their job. The tannery provided for many families in the small town, and everyone who had work was thankful for it. They couldn’t afford to not get paid, and so their organizational structure forced them to stay quiet. One man, who eventually wound up telling, was in obvious distress throughout the movie trying to keep the secret of the toxic waste. This fear of reaction for the workers is an obvious organizational problem in the pyramid of the business world. All of these problems are evident in A Civil Action, drawn out mainly through the interaction of the characters and the transformation of Jan Schlichtmann.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found A Civil Action to be a very persuasive and compelling film. As a Hollywood production, it was much different than many of the documentaries we have watched this semester. It was persuasive that sustainability problems could be drawn out through a purely human-interest story, that of both Jan Schlichtmann and the families of Woburn. There were no hard facts about the water tables and contamination or of the specific medical effects of the chemicals, but rather the film focused on the more human aspects of the problems, problems that anyone can relate to. I found the scenes of Jan’s transformation the most compelling, showing how the problems can quickly multiply and spread out to reach many more people than just those originally involved. One scene I found particularly interesting was one toward the end, where Schlichtman is speaking with Jerry, the older lawyer for Beatrice. They are talking about many of the negative components of law, and how the courtroom isn’t really the place to look for the truth. It emphasizes the political influences on the system, and how even once it comes down to the people, the most deserving don’t always win. This scene was especially compelling because it drew up a lot of intriguing points about how our “fair” legal system really works.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I really enjoyed A Civil Action, and I thought it did an excellent job portraying the issues of this true story. One parts of the film I did not find as persuasive, however, was toward the end when Jan is writing a letter saying he can no longer carry the case on to the court of appeals. I didn’t really understand who he was writing the letter too, and while maybe I just missed it, it resulted in the end being slightly confusing. It was good to have a little recap at the end, but it didn’t focus enough on the outcomes, both for the case and for Schlichtmann as a whole to be entirely compelling. I also felt that the parents of the deceased children could have played a more important role in the film, as all of the scenes with them were very compelling, but they were few and far between. The film was excellent, however, at portraying the true human emotions of the characters.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I am interested to find out how many similar cases have been settled outside of court, and out of the few that wound up going to trial, how often there were serious consequences for the companies involved. There are obviously problems in a world where a company can be responsible for the death of eight children and merely pay a fine to help clean up the mess. I would like to find out more about some similar cases, as well as about the types of lawyers who take on these cases. While Schlichtmann was a personal injury lawyer who turned environmental lawyer, it would be interesting to see the number of students graduating law school with the ability to take on these type of environmental cases, and to note if that number has changed over the past few centuries.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
A Civil Action is certainly a film best promoted for older viewers, simply because of content, but I believe it would address a wide variety of audiences. A major difference between this film and many of the other films this semester was its Hollywood status, with major actors and a Hollywood budget. The film does present many similar sustainability problems as some of the other documentaries, but it does so in a very narrative way that much more of the general public can relate to than scientific documentaries. I think that the film would be well received by college-aged students or older as proof of the injustices of our legal system . It doesn’t seem that the film would change anyone’s opinion on environmental problems, but it may make them begin to question many of the principles they take to be safe, such as our legal system.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film’s main point of intervention was focused on the human aspect of these type of cases, and that when you genuinely feel for a cause, you will be willing to give up everything to provide your point and to help the people involved. It especially points to environmental lawyers to remind them to stand up for the people and hold the corporations responsible for their actions. It also speaks on an individual level to speak up for what you believe in, even if it isn’t the easiest, such as the man who rented the dump trucks to remove all of the waste at his boss’s request. The kind of interventions suggested by A Civil Action aren’t specific actions to carry out, but more of a reminder to humanity on how we look after our own people.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
A Civil Action did not have many scientific facts in it, but I’m not sure that was necessary to create educational value within the film. I really enjoyed the movie and how it brought up sustainability issues while simultaneously keeping strictly to the narrative of the true story. Perhaps some more information about the results of the appeals could have helped, or additionally more on some precedent cases or other similar cases that had taken place. The film was very educational, at least to me, but perhaps it could have tried to touch upon some more specific examples of the big-picture ideas.